What is this colored fiber in my chicken? • Hacker News Board

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#161

Post by lawik » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

jherdman wrote: post #123

ncr100 wrote: post #15

Fake meat cannot come soon enough - poor bird was encouraged to grow in an unhealthy manner resulting in dead tissue inside it while it was still alive. I wonder if it was painful for the bird having this tough dead tissue at the core of its breasts.

> Fake meat cannot come soon enough - poor bird was encouraged to grow in an unhealthy manner resulting in dead tissue inside it while it was still alive. It's really interesting to me that you reached for fake meat instead of better farming practices.

It is interesting and I believe a lot of people view this vastly differently.

I'm vegan, I've decided against the current practices. I applaud any attempt to move towards or support better practices. But I don't think eating meat from previously living creatures is for me.

But I am seriously undecided for lab meat. I don't really mind the chemical components of meat, some of them seem really useful. And no animals were harmed, it could probably be a lot more energy efficient. Also, there is the potential for serious scale I imagine, which interests me. Not sure when it could get there though.

If that happens I think "real meat" might end up being the fancy expensive stuff :)

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#162

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:21 PM UTC

bananicorn wrote: post #105

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Don't these two sentiments exclude each other? Not the OP, but a meat eater. I think it's obvious for most people that they want to eat meat but they don't want to cause unnecessary suffering. Those two sentiments aren't just not mutually exclusive, they complement each other. I know people who keep animals for their meat- chickens, ducks, goats, pigs and a cow or two. I've seen them really care for, and about the…

Am I so wrong in the assumption, that if someone claims to love something, he won't hurt it? Allow me to put this into a little statement: "I love you, but now I have to kill you, so I can consume you" And they still cause suffering. A mother loses her child (calf), a sister her brother, just because there is someone who wants to eat him/her/it?

[deleted]

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#163

Post by 24gttghh » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:21 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #141

krona wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live but in the UK, dogs are (in law) personal property and discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner. Furthermore, farmers can kill your dog (humanly) on his land if it is causing distress to his animals. In law this is a lawful excuse to cause criminal damage. There are all kinds of lawful excuses. For instance, a person (usually a farmer) is free to k…

> discounting welfare issues Well, that's the whole point. I thought you were going to say that in the UK, you can't just chop down a tree on your land - there are often legal barriers preventing the felling of listed trees!

Being listed would seem to imply a tree was specifically selected by a town for historical or aesthetic qualities. They would seem to be on conservation or public land most of the time, no?

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#164

Post by Baeocystin » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:23 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #102

Baeocystin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cell expansion already has decades of science behind it. There isn't anything hard about it, either. You or I could expand cultures in our kitchens with minimal difficulty as it is. The hard part of 'fake meat' (which isn't fake, it's real muscle tissue, it's just grown differently) is that muscle alone doesn't taste good, or have a pleasing texture. You need connective tissue, fat, blood vessels... The whole lot, re…

>Cell expansion already has decades of science behind it Not where nutritional epidemiology is concerned. Not by a long shot.

Not for meat, but we've been eating yeasts, algae, bacteria, and other cellular cultures for thousands of years. It's not like the concept is new across the board.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#165

Post by bkkssnn » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:24 PM UTC

idiot74 wrote: post #70

pjmlp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless one is producing their own vegetables, industrial production of them is no different than meat. I know of local farms where getting above average cabbages, from little seed to the nice looking one on the market stands, takes little more than one month, thanks to the chemicals they get. It is nothing more than "I feel good" kind of thing.

> Unless one is producing their own vegetables, industrial production of them is no different than meat. This post lacks common sense. Processing and feeding animals uses far more resources than processing crops (especially since crops are often processed in order to feed animals...). "The efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein varies widely. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilog…

I think the username fits in this case.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#166

Post by stiGGG » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:26 PM UTC

krona wrote: post #129

danielpatrick wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's why it is very much legal for me to chop up a tree that I find on my property but not a dog.

I don't know where you live but in the UK, dogs are (in law) personal property and discounting welfare issues, you can do what you want with them if you're the owner. Furthermore, farmers can kill your dog (humanly) on his land if it is causing distress to his animals. In law this is a lawful excuse to cause criminal damage. There are all kinds of lawful excuses. For instance, a person (usually a farmer) is free to k…

In Germany you'll send to prison if you kill your dog. But killing your chicken, cow oder pig is just fine. That's so weird.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#167

Post by stagbeetle » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:27 PM UTC

fredley wrote: post #142

samueladam wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant...

Plants react to things that can harm them. Pain, however, is something that it requires neurons to experience.

A rash rejection of dialog.

Plants are very lowly sentient through structures that are the plant-counterparts to animalian neurons.

They communicate with other plants and they sense what can be described as "pain."

But, I don't think arguing on the sentience of an unprotected kingdom will further this discussion.

The discussion on animal welfare seems to be an emotional one alone. As long as our mirror neurons aren't firing in response to the perceived pain animals feel, all is millhouse.

This is why, I believe very few care about plant welfare. They have no mouths with which to scream, so we believe (or make ourselves believe) that they aren't in pain. That they are too dumb to feel pain (this parallels sinisterly with the cruelty of psychological medicine in the 20th century).

Not to mention how silly it is to care about plant welfare... or is it? There have been little studies done on how the constant slaughter of plants affects the secondary factors (maturation speeds, yield, etc. -- as apposed to the primary: deforestation, etc.).

However, I don't think there ever will be such advances in this field. Perhaps because they have no way of polluting this discussion with emotions, unlike their animal counterpart.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#168

Post by keehun » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:28 PM UTC

Hexcles wrote: post #118

Animal welfare aside, I find people in North America really in favour of chicken breast, much more than other parts, say chicken thigh. Yet I myself think chicken thigh tastes much better, especially with the skin (yet again it is usually skinless in supermarkets here, unfortunately). Is it because of nutrition (percentage of fat/protein etc.)? On top of that, chicken feet are considered unacceptable by many...

I prefer chicken thigh myself, but the best chicken I've tasted to date comes from the hands of an experienced chef who made the chicken breast the most tender and delicious chicken I've ever tasted. The dish also included the thigh, but it didn't come close to the breast. It's as if the thigh is much more forgiving but has a lower potential ceiling than the breast which is much less forgiving but can be insanely delicious.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#169

Post by lawik » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

andrewclunn wrote: post #108

Your concern for animal welfare will never be enough for the animal rights people (just read the other comments here).

Umm, I've seen plenty of balanced views in this thread. I'm a vegan, partially for animal rights but I still encourage meat-eaters that are concerned to go for the better stuff. I don't believe it is the best solution, but I applaud anyone willing to attempt to make things better.

"the animal rights people" is a pretty broad brush, I know that quite a few can be completely impossible to discuss the nuances with but honestly, there are so many vegetarians for ethical reasons around that just don't say anything or go "cool, that's better than industrial farming". I also encounter a good part of meat-eaters that become incredible defensive and almost hostile if they find out about my dietary choices.

Always frustrating to see black and white grouping when the truth is incredibly nuanced.

Re: What is this colored fiber in my chicken?

#170

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Mon, Apr 10, 2017, 1:31 PM UTC

bananicorn wrote: post #105

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Don't these two sentiments exclude each other? Not the OP, but a meat eater. I think it's obvious for most people that they want to eat meat but they don't want to cause unnecessary suffering. Those two sentiments aren't just not mutually exclusive, they complement each other. I know people who keep animals for their meat- chickens, ducks, goats, pigs and a cow or two. I've seen them really care for, and about the…

Am I so wrong in the assumption, that if someone claims to love something, he won't hurt it? Allow me to put this into a little statement: "I love you, but now I have to kill you, so I can consume you" And they still cause suffering. A mother loses her child (calf), a sister her brother, just because there is someone who wants to eat him/her/it?

>> Am I so wrong in the assumption, that if someone claims to love something, he won't hurt it?

In principle, maybe. In practice, we're really good at dealing with contradictory and even conflicting emotions.

For instance, in the past people used to beat up their kids to teach them things. Today, we generally don't- but that's not because we love our kids any more, or less. We just find it unproductive.

So, yes, it's perfectly possible to dearly love an animal and want to eat it- because, after all, that's why we keep farm animals in the first place: to kill them and eat them (and also for their milk, wool, eggs etc). The relationship that makes us love animals is the same one that makes us kill and eat those same animals.

Edit:

>> A mother loses her child (calf), a sister her brother, just because there is someone who wants to eat him/her/it?

If we didn't do that something else would. Animals kill and eat each other all the time and most of them die when something else eats them.

Of course we're special- but even in our specialness we can only subsist on food that is alive- if it's not a calf, it's an egg that cold have hatched into a chicken, or a fruit that could have grown in a beautiful plant. Calfs and lambs can scream and run away but a cabbage is no less alive.